Appeal from a judgment of the District Court of Nassau County, First District (Sharon M.J. Gianelli, J.), rendered February 17, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of forcible touching.

ORDERED that the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Defendant was charged with endangering the welfare of a child (Penal Law § 260.10) and forcible touching (Penal Law § 130.52). It was alleged that the 26-year-old defendant grabbed the breasts of a 16-year-old intern with whom he shared an office at work. Prior to trial, the People filed a CPL 710.30 notice which indicated their intent to introduce into evidence a "statement and/or admission" of defendant. The notice provided the time and place of the statement, and indicated that the statement was oral and consisted of a "Taped admission on controlled phone call." Defendant was also provided during pre-trial discovery with a copy of the audiotape. At trial, defense counsel objected to the admission of the audiotape into evidence, arguing that the CPL 710.30 notice was defective as it did not provide the "sum and substance" of the alleged statement. Defendant had not previously moved to suppress any statements. The audiotape was admitted into evidence over defendant's objection. Thereafter, the jury found defendant guilty of forcible touching and acquitted defendant of endangering the welfare of a child.

Defendant's contention on appeal that the verdicts are repugnant is unpreserved for appellate review since defendant did not raise such an objection before the jury was discharged [*2](see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Alfaro, 66 NY2d 985 [1985]; People v Satloff, 56 NY2d 745 [1982]; People v Jackson, 19 AD3d 614, 615 [2005]), and his dehors-the-record contentions should have been raised in a CPL 440.10 motion to vacate the judgment.

The District Court properly admitted the audiotape into evidence over defense counsel's objection. Contrary to defendant's contention, the CPL 710.30 notice that he received adequately informed him of "the sum and substance" of the conversation that the People wanted to introduce at trial (see People v Mais, 71 AD3d 1163 [2010]), and he was provided, prior to trial, with an audiotape of the conversation sought to be introduced.

Furthermore, defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). In view of the fact that the sentence is within the permissible statutory guidelines and defendant did not show that the sentencing court abused its discretion or that extraordinary circumstances exist (see People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681 [1999]), we decline to modify the sentence (see People v Hodges, 13 AD3d 979 [2004]).

Accordingly, the judgment of conviction is affirmed.

Iannacci, J.P., Nicolai and Molia, JJ., concur.
Decision Date: January 20, 2011